Fred W. Frank Bail Bondsman, Inc. v. State

²²⁹ WENNER, Judge. This is an appeal from the forfeiture of two bail bonds to appellee, the State of Maryland. Appellant, Fred W. Frank Bail Bondsman, Inc., on behalf of Allegheny Mutual Casualty Company and All American Bail Bonds, has appealed from an order of the Circuit Court for Wicomico County denying its Petition to Strike Forfeiture, Set Aside Judgment, and Release Bond. On appeal, we are asked: Whether the Circuit Court erred in denying the Petitions to Strike Forfeiture, Set Aside the Judgments Against the Bail Bondsman and the Surety, and Release the Bonds because it was impossible for the surety to fulfill its contractual obligation to produce the defendants.

Finding no error, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court. BACKGROUND On April 9, 1991, Francois Fils Caze and Marie Christine Caze (the defendants) were arrested and charged with a number of drug offenses. The defendants were released pending trial, after posting a corporate bond of $100,000 each. Two weeks prior to August 1, 1991, the date scheduled for trial, the appellant learned that the defendants had fled to Haiti.

They did not appear for trial, and the circuit court ordered the bonds forfeited. Md.Code (1957, 1992 Repl.Vol.) Art. 27 § 616Kb)(4) and Maryland Rule 4-217(i)(l). Following the order of forfeiture, appellant made diligent efforts to locate the defendants. On November 1, 1991, the circuit court granted appellant’s request for an additional 90 days to produce the defendants.

Art. 27 § 616/£(e) and Rule 4-217(i)(3). Appellant continued attempting to locate the defendants, traveling to Haiti on two occasions. Although they were found in Haiti, the defendants refused to return voluntarily to the United States. Appellant sought to have them extradited but was unsuccessful because the United States and Haiti had ²³⁰ no diplomatic relations following the ouster of Haiti’s President.

When the 90 day extension expired, appellant had still failed to produce the defendants and the circuit court entered judgment in favor of the State. As we have mentioned, the circuit court subsequently denied appellant’s Petition to Strike Forfeiture, Set Aside Judgment, and Release Bond, and this appeal followed. STANDARD OF REVIEW In reviewing the judgment of the circuit court, we must determine whether it acted arbitrarily or unreasonably in refusing to grant appellant’s Petition. Allegheny Mutual v. State, 234 Md. 278, 286 , 199 A.2d 201 (1964); Hill v. State, 86 Md.App. 30, 35 , 585 A.2d 252 (1991).

STATUTES GOVERNING BAIL BONDS Article 27 § 616/6 and Maryland Rule 4-217 govern bail bonds and set forth the procedure following a defendant’s failure to appear as required. Under such circumstances, Rule 4-217(i)(l) requires forfeiture of the bond. See also Art. 27 § 61656(b)(4). If the defendant appears within 90 days (or within 180 days if the surety has received an extension from the court), the court may strike the forfeiture “[i]f the defendant or surety can show reasonable grounds for the defendant’s failure to appear.” Rule 4—217(i)(2); Art. 27 § 61656(e).

See Allegheny Mutual Ins. Co. v. State, 50 Md.App. 169, 173 , 436 A.2d 515 (1981). If the defendant is not produced within 90 or 180 days, the court may enter judgment in favor of the State. Rule 4-217(i)(4)(A).

If, however, .the defendant is produced after 90 or 180 days, the court “shall strike the judgment against the surety entered as a result of the forfeiture.” Rule 4-217(i)(5). DISCUSSION Analogizing its situation to the concept of “impossibility” as an excuse for non-performance in contract law, appellant ²³¹ contends that the lack of diplomatic relations between the United States and Haiti makes it impossible for him to produce the defendants. Each bond required that the Defendant personally appear, as required, in any court in which the charges are pending, or in which a charging document